4 ms·

The jury is still out there if his analysis are level-headed or not. He says things that some people want to hear, but that's not level-headed E.g What is t

by ai-x 1y ago

The jury is still out there if his analysis are level-headed or not. He says things that *some* people want to hear, but that's not level-headed E.g What is the unit cost of serving a Token? It is the cost of electricity + amortized cost of GPU (GPUs would have been Capex, but because of their fast depreciation rate, you can claim they should be Opex). Given this cost structure, every SOTA labs (Google, Anthropic and OpenAI) are profitable and actually have high-margins 50-60%. With this margin and growth, the frontier labs can be profitable anytime they want to. But they are sacrificing profitability for growth (as they should be) Where is Ed's analysis about this? Either he is disingenuous or clueless. Remember people who voluntarily subscribe to Ed, are coming from wanting to hear what they believe. If he is level-headed, show me an Ed article that is positive about AI

tecleandor 1y ago
> If he is level-headed, show me an Ed article that is positive about AI Why should those two things go together?
- ai-x 1y ago
  If 1 Billion people voluntarily use a product and many claim to be productive, there must be something good about the product right? But I guess Ed Zitron has found his audience
  - fred_is_fred 1y ago
    His argument is not that AI is not useful, it's that it's not financially sustainable at the current prices being charged for it - and additionally AI start-ups have 0 moat. Both of which likely are true.
    - edstarch 1y ago
      Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. The rambling nature of his posts also makes it harder to properly argue against them as he keeps repeating the same points over and over; some of them are decent but there is certainly a gish gallop feeling to the whole thing.
      - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
        > Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... He definitely changed his mind on AI coding agents based on reader feedback. Ultimately though, you need incredible productivity growth/massive layoffs to make the numbers work for the current spending and RN, I don't see large signs of this. > I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. I think this is probably because he feels like he's taking crazy pills when he hears what CEOs/leaders are saying about this. It's some kind of mind virus. Like, I was at a meetup a few months back where a senior data/code person was saying that nobody would write code in 5 years, which (if you've used the tools heavily) seems pretty absurd.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    > If 1 Billion people voluntarily use a product and many claim to be productive, there must be something good about the product right? Not necessarily. That METR study was interesting in that participants reported that they were more productive, but the hard data disagreed. This is incredibly common when looking at humans, we're generally bad at knowing what hurts or helps us in this sphere. And personally, I think LLMs are super useful, but I'm pretty sceptical about valuations and returns in this space over the short to medium term.
  - gloosx 1y ago
    A classic "billion flies can't be wrong"-style argument :) A billion people drink Coke every day, yes, and billions also have cavities, obesity, and diabetes. Majorities also once thought the Earth was flat.

The jury is still out there if his analysis are level-headed or not. He says things that *some* people want to hear, but that's not level-headed E.g What is t

by ai-x 1y ago

tecleandor 1y ago

> If he is level-headed, show me an Ed article that is positive about AI Why should those two things go together?

ai-x 1y ago
If 1 Billion people voluntarily use a product and many claim to be productive, there must be something good about the product right? But I guess Ed Zitron has found his audience
- fred_is_fred 1y ago
  His argument is not that AI is not useful, it's that it's not financially sustainable at the current prices being charged for it - and additionally AI start-ups have 0 moat. Both of which likely are true.
  - edstarch 1y ago
    Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. The rambling nature of his posts also makes it harder to properly argue against them as he keeps repeating the same points over and over; some of them are decent but there is certainly a gish gallop feeling to the whole thing.
    - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      > Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... He definitely changed his mind on AI coding agents based on reader feedback. Ultimately though, you need incredible productivity growth/massive layoffs to make the numbers work for the current spending and RN, I don't see large signs of this. > I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. I think this is probably because he feels like he's taking crazy pills when he hears what CEOs/leaders are saying about this. It's some kind of mind virus. Like, I was at a meetup a few months back where a senior data/code person was saying that nobody would write code in 5 years, which (if you've used the tools heavily) seems pretty absurd.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  > If 1 Billion people voluntarily use a product and many claim to be productive, there must be something good about the product right? Not necessarily. That METR study was interesting in that participants reported that they were more productive, but the hard data disagreed. This is incredibly common when looking at humans, we're generally bad at knowing what hurts or helps us in this sphere. And personally, I think LLMs are super useful, but I'm pretty sceptical about valuations and returns in this space over the short to medium term.
- gloosx 1y ago
  A classic "billion flies can't be wrong"-style argument :) A billion people drink Coke every day, yes, and billions also have cavities, obesity, and diabetes. Majorities also once thought the Earth was flat.